"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court..."
That's the idea, Nancy.
Posted on 07/01/2005 5:03:46 AM PDT by linkinpunk
House Votes To Undercut 5-4 Ruling On Property
Federal Funds Tied To Eminent Domain
By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 1, 2005; Page A01
The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.
/snip
The House measure, which passed 231 to 189, would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall.
/snip
The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said they will push for a more inclusive measure that would apply to all federal funds.
/snip
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) introduced a similar measure and immediately drew a Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), as well as Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is number three in his party's leadership. The House bill is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). Its Democratic co-sponsors include Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Peter A. DeFazio (Ore.).
/snip
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Pelosi once again shows that she went too long without oxygen during one of her face lifts.
I'd make that my new tagline, but it's too long!
Now you're talkin', Big Guy!
With the president's Ownership Society program, more minorities own homes than ever before. The 5 Rogues of the SC just ripped minority gains right out of their hands and apparently they recognize that.
The fact that the rest of us no longer have property rights doesn't change what SCOTUS just did to them.
I'm sorry. This isn't good enough. It's not. They may want us to think that it is, but it isn't.
This let's the decision stand, but denies money to projects that may have sought it out.
The decision has to be nullified. I'm not sure this achieves that end.
I remember reading on another thread that the Founders intended the judiciary to be the "weakest" of the three supposedly co-equal branches. The lawmakers were supposed to take the lead, with the implementers following, and the interpreters kind of riding shotgun. Now, it seems the system is the exact obverse. In some ways, the legislative and executive branches often tremble in obsequious fear before the judiciary.
While mainly symbolic in effect (relatively few private development projects rely primarily on federal funds), this legislative effort is, in some ways, an example of the checks and balances system. The legislators have a sense that the judiciary has overstepped its bounds, and is taking some initial steps towards correcting the balance. Those may or may not be effective, but they have to try, and have to start with something. Hopefully, other measures will be taken to reverse or mitigate this obviously flawed ruling.
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the measure. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court..."
That's the idea, Nancy.
It goes much deeper than that. In his majority decision, Stevens framed this as a States rights issue. Essentially what he has said is that States have the right to overrule the fundamental protections given to all Americans by the 5'th Amendment.
But if States have the right to overrule the 5th Amendment, why does the same logice not apply to the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Essentially Stevens has nullified all of the basic rights of the Constitution and left people at the mercy of State and local governments.
Many minorities own homes in areas that are becoming more attractive to developers, as they buy up and rehabilitate homes in the inner suburbs. Furthermore, the value of their land would be even greater once the minorities are moved out. This USSC ruling paints a target on the roof of every minority homeowner.
Can't you just see every Podunk town in the country redlining their minority districts? Kill two birds with one stone, they will! Blacktown looks like just the place for that new Wal-Mart!
Each and every republican member who voted against this should be thrown out on their collectivbe asses in next years primaries.
There isn't much more they can do. At least they are doing something.
They can't ban it. Now, they could try to get a constitutional amendment, but I doubt we could get enough Dems to make it pass.
It would be nice if Pelosi actually knew something about the way our constitution works before commenting on it.
Nonsense. It's not the areas that are "high crime", it's the inhabitants. Those great cities would have to rid themselves of those persons first.
This ought to be the campaign rallying cry for 2006 & 2008 and on, as some have said here. Such boldfaced ignorance of the Constitution and basic human rights in the highest court of the land is outrageous. We need to stave off liberalism/altruism in the next 50 years, and try to undo the incredible damage it has done. My worry...that it's too ingrained in people, even Republicans, for them to realize the horror that is this decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.